Downgrading/Reclass--Insult to New Orleans!!!!

[DoctorHurricane2003]

A2K,

Now I know we in the meteorological community will never be able to convince some people that Katrina was a category three hurricane at landfall. It is simple as that. But for someone to throw out all evidence presented to them just because this is an informal discussion forum and people don't necessarily care about logical fallacies or because it is all "techno-babble" to someone is just plain ignorance. If you don't understand why something is declared one way or the other....ask questions, don't just say "that cannot be right because I don't understand it."

Moving on the the topic at question, the Saffir-Simpson scale classifies tropical cyclones based on the 1-minute averaged sustained wind speed at a standard height of 10 meters. It does not go by gusts, storm surges, or pressures. This is a weakness of the scale as proved by Ivan and Katrina, however it is what we have to work with in classification terms. The data from the instruments that we have (SFMR, Doppler radar velocities, land based reports, aircraft dropsondes) shows that it is a category three hurricane. The 117 KT gust from that one anemometer is not enough to classify it...while it would be a category 4 storm if it was a sustained wind speed....it is more representative of a high end category 2 or a borderline 2/3 because it is only a GUST that may have last for about 3 seconds max.

Personally, I don't really give a flying flip if you have been through every hurricane since Europeans found America. That is not what trains people to be able to tell by the naked eye what speed a wind is blowing at. Nothing can do that, not even a doctorate degree from the best meteorological university in the world. To determine a wind's speed you have no choice but to look at instruments such as anemometers, SFMR, Doppler radar, etc. Trust me, I tried doing it before on numerous occasions and I think the closest I ever was...one time....was within 15 MPH of the actual....usually its around 20-40 depending on what I'm trying to guess.

I hope this helped you understand the way things work a little bit more. Have a happy holiday.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Wanna know the difference between our views on this topic? I wouldn't have more faith in ordinary people claiming that winds were stronger than Category 1-2 than actual scientific data. I'd bet that many of those people, if not all, have never even witnessed sustained winds exceeding 74mph pre-Katrina in their lifetime to even make a comparison.

You'd lose your bet. I've been through 'em, and so have about a hundred other folks I've spoken to. One went through Andrew IN FLORIDA, I went through it, as well as Betsy and Hilda here. Could go on and on, but it would prove nothing--both our minds are pretty made up.


As far as looking up all the tree data on Cindy, I really don't have to as I went through it, saw it, and by comparison... well heck there just is no comparison. Next to Katrina, Cindy was a pleasant day at the beach.

I tend to agree with most of your last paragraph tho'... so on that happy note, I'll take my leave.

Pax

A2K

[CajunMama]

Experience does not make one an expert. If it did...then i could be an expert also

Katrina was downgraded but it is my thinking that people automatically think that would put her at the low end of the scale, not the high end where she possibly was. But, i will believe what the professionals say, afterall this is their career and they are probably the best of the best.

[Audrey2Katrina]

A2K,

Now I know we in the meteorological community will never be able to convince some people that Katrina was a category three hurricane at landfall. It is simple as that. But for someone to throw out all evidence presented to them just because this is an informal discussion forum and people don't necessarily care about logical fallacies or because it is all "techno-babble" to someone is just plain ignorance. If you don't understand why something is declared one way or the other....ask questions, don't just say "that cannot be right because I don't understand it."

First to make such a statement as that above is pure propaganda.
Never said "throw out all evidence presented"
Never said "I don't understand"
Never said "that cannot be right because I don't understand it" either.
like I did say--pure propaganda.

The techno-babble reference, albeit greatly out of context, was made only inasmuch as there are those who throw around jargon to amplify their contention, sometimes it is decidedly consequential, at other times, not at all.

And personally, I don't give a flip if you have more degrees than the Kelvin scale, meteorologists indeed people in all walks of life make errors in judgment, it is historical fact and it will remain so until we achieve perfection which I doubt will happen in this existence.

Actually for whatever it's worth, and returning to the subject of the thread, I do tend to agree with the vast majority of what comes out of the meteorological community, it's just that I do NOT concur with "all" of these findings and that is not meant to disparage the entire community as you appear to suspect. The very fact that they didn't come to the "proper" conclusion on Andrew till ten years later does little to belie the belief that original reports can be in error. I do agree that one cannot with scientific accuracy use nothing more than their physical senses to describe the windspeeds at any given moment; but I contend that in this particular scenario that the NHC data is as yet inconclusive and that the storm might well have been a 4 at landfall (personally I don't care what others wish to believe) and that the winds in my area were most definitely greater than Category 1, as is being presented by many.

Now I do appreciate your elaboration on the many techniques the meteorological community employs albeit I was aware of most of that already, and I'm sorry if you feel it "ignorant" simply to disagree with certain aspects of the NHC finding. THAT was and shall remain my only position on this matter. Perhaps at a later date, I'll be able to share with you some data beyond the "sensory" data to which you refer; but I shall avoid presenting an unconfirmed report I have heard until I can substantiate it.

That said, I reiterate that I have the greatest respect for anyone devoted enough to make a career out of whatever occupational pursuit they embark upon; for me it is teaching; but I respectfully reserve the right to not accept as beyond dispute everything which comes out of the scientific community simply because they claim that they're the final word.

I hope this clears up things as well, and have a great Holiday season, and a terrific New Year!

PAX

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Experience does not make one an expert. If it did...then i could be an expert also

Katrina was downgraded but it is my thinking that people automatically think that would put her at the low end of the scale, not the high end where she possibly was. But, i will believe what the professionals say, afterall this is their career and they are probably the best of the best.

Love that name, and what a great Avatar! I agree with most of what you've just said Cajun; but as to firm "belief"... let's just say I'll remain a reserved skeptic until more data comes in.

Have a great New Year!

PAX

A2K

[DoctorHurricane2003]

A2K,

May I remind you that Andrew was upgraded 10 years later using modern technology, formulae, and analyzation techniques....the same ones that lead us to the conclusions that Ivan, Katrina, Rita, and Dennis were all Category 3 Hurricanes at landfall.

First to make such a statement as that above is pure propaganda.
Never said "throw out all evidence presented"
Never said "I don't understand"
Never said "that cannot be right because I don't understand it" either.
like I did say--pure propaganda.

You don't have to say it...you are implying it. If you are not agreeing with the scientific findings...the HARD DATA that comes out of reconnaissance, SFMR, Doppler Radar, etc. simply because of what you saw with your eyes or what some person is telling you...you are indeed throwing out the evidence and/or do not understand it.

And personally, I don't give a flip if you have more degrees than the Kelvin scale, meteorologists indeed people in all walks of life make errors in judgment, it is historical fact and it will remain so until we achieve perfection which I doubt will happen in this existence.

Yes people do make mistakes...but it is not THAT difficult to read data maps or charts. For example, if you see the following numbers:

122
126
125
133
138
120
116
112
121
120

Printed out on a chart, you are probably going to be incorrect to say the average is somewhere around 135. This is, in the most basic forms, the data that we as the meteorological community are working with. We are not working with data where an infinite number of errors can occur.

and that the winds in my area were most definitely greater than Category 1

Do you have a standard, accurate, working anemometer planted at a height of 10 meters in your backyard that led you to this conclusion? If not, I would like to know what made you come to this conclusion that is scientifically viable.

[Audrey2Katrina]

A2K,

May I remind you that Andrew was upgraded 10 years later using modern technology, formulae, and analyzation techniques....the same ones that lead us to the conclusions that Ivan, Katrina, Rita, and Dennis were all Category 3 Hurricanes at landfall.

Need I remind you that 10 years from now they very well might be using what they term "modern technology, formulae, and analyzation techniques..." et. al. that this time period did not/does not possess? What is modern today indeed is "modern" by standards 10 years ago, and equally will be "outdated" 10 years hence. The folks at the time of Andrew's original categorization were also using "modern" technology.

And regarding your errant assumptions of what I said:

You don't have to say it...you are implying it. If you are not agreeing with the scientific findings...the HARD DATA that comes out of reconnaissance, SFMR, Doppler Radar, etc. simply because of what you saw with your eyes or what some person is telling you...you are indeed throwing out the evidence and/or do not understand it.

That is an assumption on your part, and a wrong one at that.

We are not working with data where an infinite number of errors can occur.

It doesn't require an "infinite" number of errors for a report to be in error now does it?

Do you have a standard, accurate, working anemometer planted at a height of 10 meters in your backyard that led you to this conclusion? If not, I would like to know what made you come to this conclusion that is scientifically viable.

I stated in my previous post that I will reserve any claim of viable data until I can substantiate it. I do NOT disagree with the premise of your argument, I disagree with the conclusion. All that said, I once again reiterate that despite your defensive attitude, I am not out to disparage the meteorological community. Disagreement with certain aspects of one report is no more a disparagement of an entire community of meteorologists than a simple reclassification is tantamount to a disparagement of any resident community.

PAX

A2K

[TSmith274]

People, it's Christmas. Be nice. No need for talk of anemometers. Come to New Orleans. Look at the trees. Look at people's houses. Look at buildings downtown. If that was a cat 1, then I'm the tooth fairy. Like I said before, a cat 1 hurricane has stuck N.O. directly before. Look it up. 1988... Hurricane Florence. No windows blown out, no blue roofs, and no trees uprooted. I don't care what instruments say what... Katrina, in no way, was a cat 1.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

Need I remind you that 10 years from now they very well might be using what they term "modern technology, formulae, and analyzation techniques..." et. al. that this time period did not/does not possess? What is modern today indeed is "modern" by standards 10 years ago, and equally will be "outdated" 10 years hence. The folks at the time of Andrew's original categorization were also using "modern" technology.

Then you indeed know nothing about meteorology. Meteorology is a growing science...in terms of formulae and analyzation techniques...each new formula/technique grows upon past ones...so even though the error might jump around for a decade or so, it is closing in on the actual value. While we did have new methods that helped us discover that Andrew was indeed a category 5 storm, a change of 15 MPH in the strength of the storm at landfall, we will not likely see such a large change again. IF there is any change in reanalyzation techniques sometime in the future, at most, a change *might* be 10 MPH....more likely in the area of 5 MPH....either way. It is not likely at all that we will see major changes in the saffir-simpson strength of these recent storms.

It doesn't require an "infinite" number of errors for a report to be in error now does it?

Obviously you have no sense of exaggerative sarcasm, either. Go back to my post, look at the sample numbers, and tell me what the average number is. It is not very difficult at all. This is the most basic form of data we work with...raw data from dropsondes and land-based observations.

I stated in my previous post that I will reserve any claim of viable data until I can substantiate it.

Simply because you can't! You are giving me this:

I also don't need to be reminded of the need to "experience" a hurricane firsthand. I've "experienced" hurricanes since Audrey of 1957, to Katrina this year, and been smack in the middle of Andrew's cat 3 landfall near Morgan City La., and I can say, speaking FROM that experience that these winds were at the very least every bit as strong in Metairie, La. as Andrew's were in Morgan City--and the wind damage around here supports that.

I and no other person will accept "experience" as a substitute for data. Period. BTW it might also help your argument to use a stronger hurricane. When Andrew got to Morgan City, it was nothing more than a borderline category 1/2. You *might* be able to get 105 MPH out of it, but it was more or less around 90-100 MPH.

That is an assumption on your part, and a wrong one at that.

I doubt that. See above.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

TSmith,

The wind speed associated with Hurricane Katrina was borderline category 1 and 2 in Downtown New Orleans. The sustained 1-Minute Wind Speed Average. Gusts more than likely were in the category 3 range. The system as a whole was a category 3 hurricane with gusts in the Category 4 range. The system was much larger than Hurricane Florence, and it also had more momentum to push the lakewaters to breach the levees. Over the lake, wind speeds were probably more in the category 2 range, stronger than Florence, because of less surface friction. The trees and buildings on land help to slow down the wind to the more or less borderline area.

[TSmith274]

TSmith,

The wind speed associated with Hurricane Katrina was borderline category 1 and 2 in Downtown New Orleans. The sustained 1-Minute Wind Speed Average. Gusts more than likely were in the category 3 range. The system as a whole was a category 3 hurricane with gusts in the Category 4 range. The system was much larger than Hurricane Florence, and it also had more momentum to push the lakewaters to breach the levees. Over the lake, wind speeds were probably more in the category 2 range, stronger than Florence, because of less surface friction. The trees and buildings on land help to slow down the wind to the more or less borderline area.

Doctor, very good points all around. You're right about the gusts. Chances are, the gusts mislead a lot of locals... as far as damage is concerned...i.e blue roofs, trees, etc. But, I must admit... even at Buras, La., where I lost a vacation home... the water did most of the damage. Everything in Buras is gone, EXCEPT for houses on stilts. Seriously... there are a few structures down there, at the point of first landfall for Katrina, that survived. The ones that did were all elevated. Sure, some roofs are gone... but most elevated homes just lost shingles and had windows blown out. However, I do believe that the strength of the storm is being underestimated at this time, slightley. With that said... I believe that the lesson of Katrina will be that any storm that maintains the massive strength that Katrina did up until landfall will exact unreal damage to areas that it affects because of storm surge. Let Katrina be a lesson to all coastal residents that one must not take solace in the weakening of a storm during it's approach. Rather, we must learn NOT to put so much weight into the category of a storm upon landfall. Always be vigilent, and respect every storm. If we all learn this hard lesson... then Katrina served a purpose.

[yzerfan]

You are exactly right. Ivan, from what I can gather, produced high end Cat 1 to low end Cat 2 here in Santa Rosa County, at least away from the coast. Trees were down by the tens of thousands. While I realize that this is a heavily wooded part of Florida that is still extensive. The key was the long duration of the level of winds we had. While there were certainly very high gusts we did not experience sustained Cat 3 conditions.....and this place looked like a bomb went off.

docjoe

Though part of that came from the type of trees. So much of the area was harvest timber for so long that it's overrun with non-native shortleaf pines. They got planted because they grow quickly, and the flip side of that is that they're horrible about going down during high winds. I've had neighbors lose those kinds of trees during strong TS winds, much less hurricane force winds.

After we had one of them land on our garage during Ivan (fortunately, it was a soft landing, so no damage other than a scuffed shingle and dented ridge vent) we had about ten more shortleaf pines whacked in our yards because we just didn't want to deal with that kind of junk tree again. The longleaf pines, live oaks, and magnolias that are left are way, way more tolerant of wind.

[gk1]

that nearly all measurements of wind were down long before the height of the storm passed over. It is also not true that there was very little wind damage in the New Orleans area. Many businesses received damage on the east side of the city.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Then you indeed know nothing about meteorology.

Ad hominems do little to support your argument. Additionally you know nothing about what I know, and I like it like that.

Meteorology is a growing science...in terms of formulae and analyzation techniques...each new formula/technique grows upon past ones...so even though the error might jump around for a decade or so, it is closing in on the actual value. While we did have new methods that helped us discover that Andrew was indeed a category 5 storm, a change of 15 MPH in the strength of the storm at landfall, we will not likely see such a large change again. IF there is any change in reanalyzation techniques sometime in the future, at most, a change *might* be 10 MPH....more likely in the area of 5 MPH....either way. It is not likely at all that we will see major changes in the saffir-simpson strength of these recent storms.

I'm sure the meteorology community and its afficionados of 1992 said much the same thing. Non-sequitur. It is interesting that far more exact sciences than meteorology are at least willing to concede the fact that betimes they err and that there will always be later findings that might render their current concepts obsolete. No such problems with you though, is there? It's seems as though I've touched a nerve and somehow you feel it incumbent upon the high office you obviously possess to uphold the unalterable findings of the meteorological community (which paradoxically are not the essence of my contention, and are not nearly as unalterable as you seem to think they are.) No need to. I respect most of it; but reserve my right not to consider it the unyielding truth. From what data I've seen, MOST of the readings on Andrew had it's top windspeeds in the 130's with an isolated few at 140, so depending upon which "reading" of the time you take, and the final reclassification which estimated that sustained winds might have been as high as 165, then the error was anywhere from your 15 to as much as 25 or 30 mph. Irrelevant though because we could argue the point back and forth; you won't change my opinion, nor I your obvious regard for the infallibility of your meteorological community. Ad hominems (which I presume will once again follow) aside, we simply disagree. Also, despite your unflagging devotion to a very finite amount of data, there IS room enough for the error of which I speak.

Obviously you have no sense of exaggerative sarcasm,

Obviously neither have you.

Simply because you can't! You are giving me this:

Take it however you wish. It certainly isn't because I "can't"; but like I know only too well, the appeal to ignorance tack is always an exploitable vulnerability. Suffice it to say that for the time being--I won't.

I and no other person will accept "experience" as a substitute for data. Period. BTW it might also help your argument to use a stronger hurricane. When Andrew got to Morgan City, it was nothing more than a borderline category 1/2. You *might* be able to get 105 MPH out of it, but it was more or less around 90-100 MPH.

Oh, believe me, I know what you won't accept; but find it presumptuous although not altogether out of character that you could speak for every other person. Be that as it may, in the first place I said it was "near" where it hit in Morgan City, and in fact less than the 20 nm from where it made actual lanfall, and since you have such an affinity for the findings of data as per the NHC's own website:

"When Andrew reached the north-central Gulf of Mexico, the high pressure system to its northeast weakened and a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. Steering currents began to change. Andrew turned toward the northwest and its forward speed decreased to about 8 kt. The hurricane struck a sparsely populated section of the south-central Louisiana coast with category 3 intensity at about 0830 UTC on the 26th. The landfall location is about 20 n mi west-southwest of Morgan City."


Of course that was that much maligned 1992 report; perhaps we've adjusted those numbers as well.

Additionally, I seem to recall having mentioned both Camille and Betsy in that list, but again, selective recall does make for better propaganda.

That is an assumption on your part, and a wrong one at that.

I doubt that. See above.

Doubt doesn't make one right; in fact, by definition there is room for "doubt"... exactly my argument. See above.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Folks, since things are beginning to look somewhat heated in the dialogue going on between myself and DoctorHurricane, I feel the need to clarify exactly what my chief objections with the Katrina report are, lest they continue to be taken out of context, or misrepresented. Sometimes in discussions like this, a damaged ego, or perhaps just a challenge to one's strongly held beliefs makes one perceive that an intellectual disagreement is a personal attack either on their career, their intelligence, or both.

At least from my end, nothing could be further from the truth. I'll let others speak for themselves as it is not my wont to speak for others however much some seem to have no qualms about same.

First and foremost: I do NOT have a low regard for the "meteorological community" and anyone who knows me would absolutely laugh at such an absurdity. Now I don't deny that someone can snip a quote here, and another there, and present a viable argument that this is exactly what I am displaying; but I repeat, nothing could be further from the truth.

That said, I do sense that there are "some" who have a predilection for condescension (and I stated as much long before this dialogue began so please make no assumptions as to whom I am referring) and become extremely defensive if someone simply holds an opposing viewpoint. When intellectual debate seems no longer an effective means of drubbing your opponent into submission, the trump card always seems to be "well you're not a professional and I am." And there IS validity in that argument; albeit more often than not it smacks of an arrogance that tends to detract from what otherwise is indeed a strong point.

There is absolutely no animus on my end for the estimabe DoctorHurricane, whom I am convinced will be (if indeed is not already) a credit to the meteorological community. I truly detect that flame and zeal of one who feels his own belief mores under attack when someone disagrees with a strongly held position. This is not a bad thing. Personally, I enjoy a good exchange and debate; but would rather eschew personal attack as a means of pursuing that forum. But I digress; my beliefs regarding Katrina, put as succinctly as I can are:

1.) The Katrina report will eventually be shown to be in error on a few points--I do NOT claim the entire thing is wrong.

2.) I believe it made initial landfall as a true Cat 4 at the very least, and will continue to believe so until presented with stronger evidence than what I see here.

3.) I believe it hit the New Orleans metro area with Cat 2/3 winds (not very different--but different from the report)

4.) I believe the winds sustained in areas like Metairie, Kenner, and across the lake, albeit "west" of the eyewall, are seriously underestimated in the lack of substantial land-based readings.

Hey, these are only my "opinions" and yes, I KNOW an opinion isn't science; but quite frankly if some scientists wouldn't have held differing opinions, it would get nowhere at all. A theory is really an "opinion" based upon observations made and provides a good explanation for those observations. A law is a scientific statement based upon all the best data from which it is derived. I make no pretense to define either in my "opinion" beyond that I feel strongly about those items above enumerated. For those of you who take issue with them, to each his/her own. I make no pretense of infallibility, I tender no scholarly or scientific data... nor do I look down my nose at those daring to disagree--it's just an opinion--to which I will remain steadfast until and/or unless something other (and better) than what I've seen so far changes my mind.

PAX And a Happy New Year to all!

A2K

[Pearl River]

All you people are throwing out borderline this and borderline that. First of all, read the preliminary report out of the NWS New Orleans. It tells you the anemometrs broke or were down prior to maximum wind. There were some universities with portable experimental wind gauges at 10m and you are going to tell me they were in the exact spots of the strongest winds? The hunters cannot even find the area of strongest winds all the time.

The central pressure in Katrina continued to gradually rise during the next few hours leading up to its final landfall near the Louisiana/Mississippi border at about 1445 UTC, when the pressure had reached 928 mb. The eastern eyewall of the hurricane remained too distant from the NWS Slidell WSR-88D radar during this period for the radar to provide near-surface wind estimates where the strongest winds were occurring.

I also have a problem with this part of the report from the NHC. The Slidell radar went down at 1359 UTC, 46 mins before it crossed the mouth of the Pearl River. Never in any part of the report does it state that Slidell's radar went down.

[jazzfan1247]

2.) I believe it made initial landfall as a true Cat 4 at the very least, and will continue to believe so until presented with stronger evidence than what I see here.

I guess nobody will change your mind on this, because the BEST evidence we have right now indicates a conclusion contrary to what you believe. If you want more convincing evidence, then you aren't gonna get it because this is the best we've got right now. But consider this: the NHC could have chosen to keep the initial operational Cat 4 intensity at the LA landfall, but they chose to downgrade it by 10 kts. Why? Because the evidence that we have today indicates that it was a Cat 3. This is a good illustriation of how science is supposed to work.

3.) I believe it hit the New Orleans metro area with Cat 2/3 winds (not very different--but different from the report)

4.) I believe the winds sustained in areas like Metairie, Kenner, and across the lake, albeit "west" of the eyewall, are seriously underestimated in the lack of substantial land-based readings.

First of all, let's take a look at an excerpt from the NHC report:

"However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt (at an elevation of about 12 m) near 1100 UTC 29 August. Also, a few instrumented towers placed in various locations in the metropolitan area by the Florida Coastal Monitoring Program (FCMP) and by Texas Tech University measured sustained winds in the range of 61-68 kt. The Mid-Lake Pontchartrain NWS site (16 m elevation), located along the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway about 8 n mi north of the south shore of the lake, also measured a one-minute sustained wind of 68 kt."

The closest observation to the eye was in eastern NO with 84 kts. Obs to the west of this were lower...consistent with the increasing distance from the eye or eyewall (increasing the data's credibility). Also, it says that not just one, but SEVERAL towers in the NO metro area recorded 61-68 kt winds. And the one on the LP causeway...only Cat 1, despite the fact that the land friction effects would be minimized there.

None of this data indicates anywhere near Cat 2/3 winds for NO. If this data isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what will.

Yes, these are your opinions, but in the field of meteorology, opinions CANNOT be held on the same level as true hard facts and science. And it is my belief that those who seem to act condescendingly towards those who believe that Katrina was stronger...have the right idea in mind, however mean or cold-hearted it may seem. People need to know the truth about storms, and not have their views clouded up by scientifically-unsupported opinions.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but these are my beliefs and I intend to convey them as best as I can.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well even the report mentions that the Southeastern tip of Louisiana "possibly" experienced sustained winds of Cat. 4 intensity--before the center made landfall.

But we're still calling it a Cat 3 landfall. I know, I know what some will say; but it just doesn't jive at all. I stand behind my skepticism of the report's findings.

People have said it is futile to argue politics or religion; perhaps hurricanes should be added to that addage.

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

Well even the report mentions that the Southeastern tip of Louisiana "possibly" experienced sustained winds of Cat. 4 intensity--before the center made landfall.

But we're still calling it a Cat 3 landfall. I know, I know what some will say; but it just doesn't jive at all. I stand behind my skepticism of the report's findings.

People have said it is futile to argue politics or religion; perhaps hurricanes should be added to that addage.

A2K

That is what I said earlier. Certain small porions of eastern and southeastern Louisiana may have experiened brief sustained Category Four winds in the eyewall before the actual center (eye) of Katrina made landfall. Katrina was likely a Category Four until just before landfall, weakening to an upper-end Category Three just when the eye itself made landfall. The Category Four winds might have been experiened because just before Katrina weakened to a Category Three before landfall, the eyewall was touching southeastern Louisiana.

[jazzfan1247]

Well even the report mentions that the Southeastern tip of Louisiana "possibly" experienced sustained winds of Cat. 4 intensity--before the center made landfall.

But we're still calling it a Cat 3 landfall. I know, I know what some will say; but it just doesn't jive at all. I stand behind my skepticism of the report's findings.

People have said it is futile to argue politics or religion; perhaps hurricanes should be added to that addage.

A2K

I acknowledge the possibility that the SE tip could've briefly experienced Cat 4 winds, but yes we still call it a Cat 3 when the eye made landfall.

You have the right to be skeptical. I'm just puzzled as to how anyone can believe that NO experienced Cat 2/3 winds, without any real sound basis whatsoever. The several available observations in the NO area recorded strong TS/Cat 1 conditions, with the only exception being weak Cat 2 in East NO. Granted these obs could've missed the highest winds... but from 61-68 kts to around 90-100 kts sustained is quite a leap of faith.